The mission of the Town of Duxbury is to deliver excellent services to the community in the most fiscally responsible and innovative manner while endeavoring to broaden our sense of community and preserve the unique character of our town.
Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 09/11/06
Approved 11/20/06
The Planning Board met in the Duxbury Senior Center, Ellison Room on Monday, September 11, 2006 at 7:00 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chair; George Wadsworth, Vice-Chairman; Angela Scieszka, Clerk; John Bear, Brendan Halligan, Jim Kimball, Harold Moody; and Associate Member Douglas Carver.
Absent: No one was absent.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
The meeting was called to order at 7:09 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Local Initiative Project: Ms. Scieszka noted that Mr. Chafik Hamadeh would be attending the Local Housing Partnership meeting on Thursday, September 14, 2006 to discuss his project off of Soule Avenue.
WORK SESSION
Duxbury Estates Planned Development (PD) recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA): Mr. Bear submitted suggested revisions to staff. Ms. Stickney noted that the economic analysis report would be turned in to the ZBA at a later date.
PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
MILLBROOK CROSSING, RAILROAD AVENUE (SILVIA & SILVIA ASSOCIATES)
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:08 PM. Present for the discussion were Atty. David Delaney; Mr. Ben Goodrich, property owner; Mr. Ron Floyd of Silvia & Silvia Associates; Mr. Peter Smith, architect; Mr. Ron Okurowsky of Coastal Engineering, project surveyor and engineer; and Mr. Tom Sexton, Town consulting engineer. Approximately 120 public members were in attendance also. Ms. Scieszka read into the record the public meeting notice and correspondence list:
§ Letter from S. Lambiase to the applicant dated 07/18/06 re: special permit and site plan approval required
§ Administrative Site Plan Review application, plans and supporting documentation submitted on 07/25/06
§ Letter from C. Stickney to Mainstream Engineering dated 07/27/06 re: peer review appointment
§ Drainage report manual and cover letter submitted by the applicants on 07/28/06
§ Letter from Delaney & Muncy, P.C. to C. Stickney and J. Grady dated 07/28/06 re: agreement to public meeting extension
§ Letter from J. Lampert to D. Delaney dated 08/07/06 re: Mainstream Engineering appointment for ZBA peer review
§ Development Review Team minutes dated 08/09/06
§ Letter from P. Anderson to C. Stickney dated 08/09/06 re: Water Department recommendations
§ Letter from Mainstream Engineering to Conservation Commission dated 08/15/06 re: Conservation peer review
§ Letter from Deputy Chief West to Planning Board dated 08/31/06 re: Fire Department concerns
§ Letter from Mainstream Engineering to C. Stickney dated 09/06/06 re: Planning Board peer review
§ Letter from W. Riegel (14 Surplus Street) dated 09/05/06 re: concerns with proposal
§ Letter from T. & L. Quigley (182 Powder Point Avenue) dated 09/07/06 re: concerns with proposal
§ Letter from M.J. Kenney-Pierce (275 Parks Street) dated 08/31/06 and submitted to the Planning office on 09/08/06 re:114 Alden Street septic issues
§ Letter and copies of site plan from Atty. Robert L. Marzelli dated 09/08/06 re: representing J. & C. Payne (Back River Fish Market owners)
§ Memo from B. Borden dated 09/11/06 re: petition with approximately 425 signatures against the proposed development
§ Staff memo dated 09/11/06
Ms. MacNab advised the audience that Planning Board would be reviewing Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws, and noted that the applicants are also applying for a special permit through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) regarding use. She advised the audience that public comments on use should be directed to the ZBA. She stated that the order of presentation would be the applicant; Planning Board members, staff and consulting engineer; and public. She noted that the Conservation Commission would be continuing its public hearing on October 10, 2006 and the ZBA hearing is scheduled to take place on November 9, 2006.
Atty. David Delaney presented the project for the applicants. He stated that discussions on this project began last winter, regarding five separately assessed parcels of land covering roughly 6.2 acres. The properties are owned by three trusts all controlled by the Goodrich family. He stated that if permits were obtained, Silvia & Silvia would retain half ownership and rent the property. Preliminary meetings have taken place with the Local Housing Partnership and the Economic Advisory Committee. The property currently includes the former Goodrich Lumber, Back River Fish Market, and buildings that have frontage on St. George Street totaling 41,779 square feet. A right of way exists in favor of Ms. Marjorie Mayo, and an easement also exists in favor of the Town of Duxbury for drainage. Wetlands exist on the site as well
as a ditch that carries water, which are being determined by the Conservation Commission.
Atty. Delaney listed current tenants at will as Millbrook Market, Powder Point Grille, Bayview Outfitters, Zahmat’s, Packaging Plus, and Snowy Owl Antiques, and stated that Back River Fish Market is a leasing tenant. He stated that the applicants plan to demolish existing buildings that total just under 51,000 square feet, and replace them with an L-shaped building with a corner at Railroad Avenue and St. George Street. Two buildings will have residential apartment housing on the second floor, with either twelve two-bedroom units or ten two-bedroom units and four one-bedroom units, and the residential component would include affordable housing. Parking would be located in front of the long building and behind and beside the corner building.
Atty. Delaney continued that the applicants would be appearing before the Board of Health, the Historical Commission, the Conservation Commission, the Planning Board, the ZBA, and the Board of Selectmen, which may have jurisdiction over sidewalks. He stated that the applicants had reviewed a seven-page critique from the Town consulting engineer, Mr. Tom Sexton, regarding conservation issues. He also noted that a traffic study is in progress and will be available within the next few weeks, and will include data both before and after the school year begins. He noted that due to comments from a Development Review Team meeting regarding the project infrastructure, he anticipates plan modification and a continued public meeting with the Planning Board.
Mr. Ron Okurowsky spoke next, representing Silvia & Silvia Associates. He stated that of over six acres on the property, four acres were upland. The existing site is currently covered by pavement, compacted gravel, and buildings. A drainage basin currently exists on the site and stormwater runs into wetlands untreated. The applicants propose to demolish the entire site and construct new buildings totaling 50,000 square feet. Three vehicle entrances are proposed: one on St. George Street and two on Railroad Avenue, each at 24-foot width for two-way traffic. An existing twelve-inch water main runs down St. George Street, and an 8-inch water main runs down Railroad Avenue, which will provide adequate water flow for the Fire and Water Departments. Massachusetts DEP stormwater management practices will be followed.
Mr. Okurowsky stated that the applicants propose a vegetated biosystem swale, which is essentially a long ditch designed to pick up first flush rainwater, with overspill going into the wetlands. A 100-foot stream currently exists, although it is dry due to salt and runoff. Catch basins are proposed on Railroad Avenue to treat stormwater runoff.
Mr. Okurowsky stated that 127 parking spaces are proposed, beyond the number required, and fire lines will be included on the east side of the property off of Railroad Avenue. A Title V standard septic system is proposed that will comply with Title V requirements.
Mr. Okurowsky referenced Mr. Tom Sexton’s peer review comments dated September 6, 2006 and stated that the applicants feel that they can address all issues raised and provide dramatic improvement to the current conditions.
Ms. MacNab invited comments from the Board. Mr. Bear questioned a 12-foot right of way shown on the plans. Atty. Delaney stated that the easement was created in the 1930s to provide access to a property that is now part of the project, and the easement will be eliminated when the project goes forward.
Mr. Moody asked for comment on Atty. Delaney’s statement that currently there is one long-term lease. Atty. Delaney confirmed that Mr. John Payne had informed the Board that he has a long-term lease and he has to be accommodated during construction if the project goes forward. Atty. Delaney stated that he had spoken with Town Counsel the previous Friday, and plans to meet with him in the next few weeks. Atty. Delaney stated that he had spoken with all tenants in late spring to inform them of the proposal, and that there is no intention to evict current tenants. He said that the applicants will invite them to sit and talk again.
Ms. Scieszka asked if there was a schematic of the types of sizes for retail spaces, and Atty. Delaney replied that there was. Ms. Scieszka asked how the proposed retail space compares to current space, and Atty. Delaney responded that it is a work in progress. He stated that the applicants intend to determine who is interested in staying and identify potential tenants as well before determining the size of retail units. He added that Back River Fish will retain its 1,500 square feet of retail space.
Ms. Scieszka asked if a drive-through facility was proposed, and Atty. Delaney confirmed it is. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board needs to consider access, egress and stormwater management. She stated that concern has been expressed over use, and that it was important for the Board to determine whether the site can accommodate the proposed use. She asked if the only retail tenant currently identified is Back River Fish Market, and Atty. Delaney responded that a bank is also proposed, adding that the bank’s drive-up window would be located on the northerly side of the building. An entrance and exit would be located on St. George Street, with Railroad Avenue providing a combined entrance and egress as well. He noted that Town consulting engineer, Mr. Tom Sexton, had recommended that the St. George Street access be used
as an entrance only and using the northerly Railroad Avenue as exit only. He stated that the Fire Department would like to see fire lanes included as well, although a fire lane in front of the Railroad Avenue building may affect proposed parking. He stated that, although there may be questions to be worked out, the final infrastructure will comply with all Town codes and bylaws.
Ms. MacNab asked for the methodology used in determining that there would be 127 parking spaces, especially since the intended use is unclear. Mr. Okurowsky replied that they determined the number of spaces based on intended commercial use.
Mr. Wadsworth noted that impervious surfaces are limited to 50% of upland, and asked if wetlands determination had been made. Mr. Okurowsky stated that the proposed site is 48 to 49% impervious, and noted that current plans show the wetlands line determined by Conservation Agent, Mr. Joe Grady, and Mr. Sexton. He said it had been previously flagged so now there are two sets of wetlands flags. He added that septic would be 150 feet from the setback.
Ms. MacNab asked Mr. Sexton to comment on major issues. Mr. Sexton stated that sidewalks are currently proposed along Railroad Avenue down to Alden Street, and he recommends sidewalk crossovers be added. Atty. Delaney noted that they are reviewing the matter and would like to follow Mr. Sexton’s recommendations if possible.
Ms. Scieszka asked if the septic system would be mounded, and Mr. Okurowsky confirmed that it would.
Ms. MacNab opened the floor to public comment.
Mr. David Lowry of 125 Standish Street submitted an artist’s rendition by David Delaney Johnson of a perspective of the proposed raised septic system as viewed from the corner of Railroad Avenue and Alden Street. Mr. Lowry stated that no elevations had been submitted with the current plans, but according to his calculations the septic system would be 200 feet in length by 33 or 34 feet in width and would rise up 5’ 8” from the ground. He asked if the applicants would be submitting a similar rendering.
Mr. Okurowsky stated that the septic system plans have been submitted for approval by the Board of Health, and noted that the actual height would be just over four feet. He stated that there are three reasons why a mounded system is proposed:
1. The bottom of the system is six feet above groundwater.
2. With a monitoring well, the high water table raises the system by one foot.
3. The 150 foot wetlands setback puts the system in its current location.
Mr. Okurowsky offered to submit another rendering if required. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board of Health’s decision would supercede the Planning Board, and therefore the issue is best addressed by the Board of Health. Ms. Stickney added that the Planning Board would be involved in screening and buffering the proposed septic system retaining wall, and potentially approving a decorative façade to the wall.
Ms. Marjorie Mayo of 291 St. George Street introduced herself as an abutter, and noted a 20-foot driveway on the proposed site that leads to her home. She stated that with the proposed plans there would be no way for emergency equipment to access her home. She also stated a concern for her privacy, describing her home as currently tucked in the woods. She expressed concern with the prospect of headlights shining in her windows. Ms. Mayo stated her issue with the proposed drainage that would be located near her property, stating that it is now filled with sludge. She stated that her water pipe had collapsed and a drain from St. George Street had also collapsed. She is concerned with where the water would go.
Ms. MacNab asked if the driveway would change with the proposed plan, and Atty. Delaney replied that Ms. Mayo currently has a 20-foot right of way extension from St. George Street onto her property that extends to 20 feet below her property. Ms. MacNab assured Ms. Mayo that the Town consulting engineer would work with the applicants to address all potential drainage issues. She also noted that the Board would be reviewing impact to the neighborhood according to Zoning Bylaw Section 615.
Ms. MacNab questioned the 29-foot right-of-way shown on the plans and asked if the applicants propose to reduce the easement to 20 feet. Atty. Delaney stated that the easement would remain at 20 feet in width and offered to provide the Board with a copy of the easement and plan.
Ms. Jeanne Clark of 88 Surplus Street stated that she had attended the Conservation Commission meeting, and noted that there is an existing stream that may feed into the Bluefish River, and should require a 200-foot setback under the River’s Act for the septic system rather than 150 feet. She noted that there may be two vernal pools on the site that would be protected for wildlife.
Mr. Mike Gregg of 198 St. George Street questioned the potential use of the proposed project, stating his concern that the applicants would command exorbitant rent that is out of reach for current tenants to afford. Ms. MacNab noted that the ZBA had discretion over use, not the Planning Board. Mr. Wadsworth added that the Board does not review fiscal feasibility as part of its administrative site plan review. Mr. Gregg asked if the Board would be requiring defined use, and Ms. MacNab replied that the Board is not the granting authority over use, and although they do have a list of potential uses, the ZBA will make that decision.
Mr. Joel Stein of 879 Tremont Street asked if the Board reviews what uses are best for the Town of Duxbury. He stated that as a real estate attorney, he believes that it is unrealistic to expect the same commercial tenants, expressing his concern that they would have to go out of business. Ms. MacNab noted that the Board does not make the final decision over use, and advised him that the ZBA hearing for this project is scheduled for November 9, 2006.
Ms. Ruth Rowley of 546 Washington Street noted that the Board’s role is to determine whether the land has capacity to support the developer’s plan. She stated that the soil is poorly suited for development. She stated that this application does not represent the best way to help develop the Town. She stated that small business areas were recommended in the Town’s comprehensive plan, and asked if the proposed development fits into the intended small business site. She said that she expects the Board to be concerned with what the Town wants.
Mr. Charles Pierce of 275 Parks Street stated that this property was originally a cranberry bog, and questioned the wetlands delineation, noting that the property includes a large amount of filled land. He referenced a covenant between Mr. Goodrich and the Town that would preclude development of the land across from Alden Street. He stated that the only land suitable for septic is where the applicants have proposed putting it, but as trustee of property located 25 feet away from the proposed development, he had been unable to obtain a septic permit.
Mr. Morgan LaMarche of 21 Prior Farm Road stated that he is the developer of Millbrook Square, an office building located on Railroad Avenue across the street from the former Goodrich Lumber. He is in favor of any improvement to the area, which he described as an eyesore. However, he noted that his development was reduced in size and suggested that the size and scope of the proposed development be reduced as well to keep it in character with the Town.
Ms. Claudia Doerre-McElduff of 170 St. George Street commented that she was glad to see conservation issues being addressed, and asked the Board to consider that young people from the nearby schools will need sidewalks and bicycle racks. She suggested that the applicants consider renovating what is already there because the area may have some historic significance.
Ms. Selden Tearse of 704 Bay Road stated that she would like to see elevations to make sure the height of the proposed structures is proportional. Ms. MacNab advised Ms. Tearse that materials are available for reviewing at the Planning office.
Ms. Rochelle Albin of 35 Merry Avenue stated that the project was monstrous and absurd, expressing concern over the potential loss of existing businesses. She asked which Board considers the big picture. Ms. MacNab responded that the Planning Board looks at the site and its capacity, and that the ZBA will determine if the application is best suited for the use of the site. Ms. Scieszka added that the Planning Board is the “big picture” forum where all the issues are reviewed, not only the nuts and bolts. Ms. Scieszka provided Ms. Albin with a detailed list of the scope of administrative site plan review under Section 615 of the Zoning Bylaws. Ms. Scieszka stated that there are some big picture issues with the proposed development, such as the perennial stream, mounded septic system, soils and wetlands
delineations, as well as the size and intended use of the offices as they relate to traffic circulation. She concluded that the Board does not have all the information as of yet.
Ms. Albin stated that she does business in the area almost daily and if the project goes forward, a part of old Duxbury would be lost. She expressed concern that the current small, family-owned businesses would be able to afford the increased rent.
Mr. John Britten of 16 Upland Road stated that, as a former chair of the Economic Development Committee and a member of the Duxbury Business Association, he has mixed emotions regarding the proposed development. He expressed concern over displacing current businesses, and recommended that the project be done in stages to avoid displacement.
Ms. Jessica Williams of 114 Alden Street noted that she lives in the house depicted on the artist’s rendering of the mounded septic system. She stated that she would not be able to see Railroad Avenue from her kitchen window. She commented that she is not sure the proposed development serves the Town’s best interest or its mission statement.
Ms. Sheila Lynch–Benttinen of 344 West Street stated that she is a patron of all the businesses in the area and expressed concern that the proposed project is not in harmonious relationship to the Town. She stated that the village feel of the current area would be lost.
Ms. M.J. Pierce of 275 Parks Street asked about the bedroom count for the proposed development, and Atty. Delaney replied that they are currently proposing 24 bedrooms, with either twelve two-bedroom units or ten two-bedroom units and four one-bedroom units. She stated that as a ZBA alternate, she has seen neighborhoods devastated from developments, and commented that the Town is afraid to say no and the residents are fighting to keep the Town unique.
Ms. Shannon Pyne of 27 Summerhouse Lane suggested that the applicants consider developing the former Goodrich Lumber area first.
Ms. MacNab thanked the public for their input, and noted that applicants have been known to revise their plans after listening to public input. She reminded the audience that other Town boards would be reviewing the proposed project as well, and advised that it is best to submit comments prior to meetings for the Board’s consideration.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to continue the public meeting for Millbrook Crossing administrative site plan review until December 4, 2006 at 8:00 PM at the Duxbury Senior Center, with revised materials to be submitted by November 20, 2006 and a decision date of January 9, 2007. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Ms. Scieszka noted outstanding issues as the project scale, septic system, and fitting in to the character of the small neighborhood business district. Ms. MacNab asked if the applicants had applied for a septic variance, and Atty. Delaney replied that they had filed in June within one week before the Health Agent resigned. He stated that they had received a letter from Inspectional Services Director, Mr. Scott Lambiase, rejecting the septic plan due to lack of information. Mr. Okurowsky added that the Board of Health was sending plans to Mr. Sexton for review.
Mr. David Lowry spoke up from the audience to express his disagreement with a statement by Ms. MacNab regarding the scope of administrative site plan review. Mr. Bear suggested that the Board consider emphasizing the scope of administrative site plan review at the beginning of public meetings for clarification.
ZBA REFERRAL: RAILROAD AVENUE / MILLBROOK CROSSING
Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Stickney to compose a recommendation based on her staff memo. Mr. Wadsworth noted that it is important to include a comment that the proposed development is too large for the sensitivity of the area. Mr. Bear added that the Economic Advisory Committee made good comments regarding a suggested staging of the development to ease the impact on existing businesses, and also regarding the elimination of street parking. Mr. Moody suggested that the ZBA be cautioned to avoid a strip mall appearance.
MOTION: Ms. Scieszka made a motion, and Mr. Wadsworth provided a second, to advise the ZBA that the Millbrook Crossing proposed development is under administrative site plan review with the Planning Board at this time, noting a concern with the growing practice of granting a “blanket” special permit for all commercial uses in the bylaw that are listed under a neighborhood business district. There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Ms. MacNab asked Ms. Stickney to submit a memo on her behalf to the Board of Health supporting their prohibition of raised septic systems.
ZBA REFERRAL: 46 LANDING ROAD / HEALY
No one was present for the discussion. Ms. Stickney noted that a similar application had come before the ZBA previously and nothing appeared to have been revised.
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Mr. Halligan provided a second, to recommend denial of the request for a Special Permit at 46 Landing Road based on the following:
§ The applicant’s engineer has not provided the following information on the site plan:
- The existing lot area is missing from the plan
- The limit of the floodplain (a notation is provided –see #5) however the site plan
does not specify if the entire lot in the flood zone or only a portion? If only a
portion of the lot is within, then the site plan should show the flood zone line.
- The zoning of the property is not provided (including overlays)
- No density or dimensional information is provided (building coverage, setbacks)
- The abutter references are not current (note Bingham #38 and Anacaone #43).
§ The Planning Board would also note that the applicant uses the end of Landing Road as their driveway and has had a concrete wall erected within the roadway layout.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Engineering Invoices:
MOTION: Mr. Wadsworth made a motion, and Ms. Scieszka provided a second, to pay the following Amory Engineers invoices:
§ Invoice #11345A in the amount of $2,611.25 for services related to Bay Farm Montessori Academy
§ Invoice #11345B in the amount of $1,706.25 for services related to 21 Chestnut Street
§ Invoice #11345C in the amount of $251.25 for services related to Hillside Lane
§ Invoice #11345D in the amount of $830.00 for services related to Wamsutta Way
§ Invoice #11345E in the amount of $281.25 for services related to Bongi’s Turkey Roost
§ Invoice #11345F in the amount of $1,392.50 for services related to 766 Temple Street.
There was no discussion.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 7-0.
Meeting Minutes: The Board agreed to table approval of meeting minutes until the next meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting was adjourned at 10:40 PM. The next meeting of the Duxbury Planning Board will be held on Monday, September 18, 2006 at 7:30 PM at Duxbury Town Hall, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
